Skip links

Header Right

Chapter 10

Translation

Loaded down with life, can you leave with nothing?
Focused in breath, can you compare with a baby?
Washing away the mystery, can you see life as flawless?
Loving the nation, can you govern the people without acting?
When Heavens gate opens wide, can your action be female?
When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?
Give birth and raise, give birth and not have;
Act and not depend on;
Be in charge and not rule;
This is called profound moral character.

Third Pass: Chapter of the Month6/3/2017

Corrections?

Reflections:

Today the list of questions this chapter highlights hints at how we beat ourselves up over not being as perfect as we think we should be. Take the first two lines for example,

Loaded down in living, can you be without?
Focused in spirit, can you be as a baby?

The implied answers to the questions tout ideals to which we aspire, but which are, like all ideals, unrealistic and unnatural. I suppose that seems an overly bold statement, but not if you agree that ideals are fundamentally projections of what we want to happen. Moreover, ideals all tend to arise when we think we know, and thus a symptom of our ‘disease’. As chapter 71 puts it, Realizing I don’t’ know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease.

I see aspirations as a kind of civilized hunt & gather dynamic. Of course, our hunt & gatherer ancestors also must have aspired to some ideals — they could think after all! However, they would have felt much less pressure to realize their aspirations since they enjoyed a socially secure egalitarian life. In our hierarchical social system, the need to have our ideals mesh with reality is huge because this promises a path to connection.

An unavoidable misunderstanding that occurs in reading any scripture is the ideal of free will, either implicit or implied. We cherish the belief in our power to make choices. After all, that is what we believe sets us apart from ‘dumb’ animals. The lure of free will is that it promises to make ideals come true if we try hard enough.

Getting over this fantasy was perhaps the most liberating leap of my life. I no longer waste time and energy on futile pursuits, and best of all, forgiveness has become almost second nature now. Without free will, no one can be blamed for the deeds they do. Their deeds, both good and bad arise from deep-seated needs, fears, and the circumstances in which they find them selves, and of which they — we — have no control! I find that the more ruthless I face the truth, the less I stress over the impossible. The truth truly sets us free.

Give birth to, nurture, give birth and yet not have;
Act and yet not depend on;
Be in charge and yet not rule;
This is called profound moral character

Viewing the list of questions as hinting at how we beat ourselves up over not being as perfect as we think we should be, puts the last four statements in a more realistic light as well. Rather than being prescriptions for perfecting one’s character, they now come across as describing the reality one experiences in moments of profound moral character. How long these moments last depends on how quiescent one’s needs and fears remain. You see, one has no way to improve one’s moral character. It just is what it is.

Second Pass: Work in Progress1/31/2013

Issues:

First the easy part. I tightened up lines 7, and added a ‘yet‘ to lines 8 and 9 to bring out the contrast, i.e., 而 means: and; as well as; and so; but (not); yet (not).

Line 1 and 2 are a bit tricky, not so much in meaning, but in terms of saying it succinctly and literally as possible. So, this is an improvement I feel, but I doubt I have heard the end of this.

Loaded down in living, can you be without? more succinctly conveys the idea that… While you are loaded down with daily ‘real life’ living can you Devote effort to emptiness, sincerely watch stillness? If more succinct makes sense, then it serves best. That is why the Tao Te Ching is so popular, eh? 😉

Focused in spirit, can you be as a baby? more succinctly conveys the idea that… Living a spirited life, vigorous and even angry at times, can you be as simple and natural as a baby without the over-thinking, Judgment passing, and dragging up of selected memory to bolster your rationalizations?

Commentary:

One thing in particular stands out between how D.C. Lau translates this, and what it says to me. He presents a more ‘objective’ view of how ‘It‘ is. ‘It‘ being the ‘Tao‘, I suppose you could say. I don’t particularly care how the ‘Tao‘ manages, unless it tells me a more effective way to live my life. Interpreting it subjectively is more direct and easier to model, for me anyway.

It is the steward yet exercises no authority. Such is called the mysterious virtue’ caught my eye today. ‘Mysterious’ is the word D.C.Lau uses to translate xuan (玄) which actually translates more directly as black; dark; profound; abstruse. Granted, all those carry a ‘mysterious’ flavor to them. The word mysterious more commonly translates to shenmi (神秘). Like many Chinese words, that is a dual character word. The first character, shen (神), means god; deity; divinity; supernatural; magical; spirit and the second character, mi (秘), means secret; mysterious; abstruse.

Why D.C. Lau chose to translate it this way is curious. It is somewhat significant because he is a renowned authority. Did he choose mysterious over dark, profound, or abstruse because mysterious is easier to understand? In my view, deep and profound convey the idea much more, well, deeply—the domain of the black and dark! These words are like the seeds from which mysterious emerges. The etymology of mysterious also makes the black and dark a better fit for xuan (玄). Have a look…

Mysterious [French mystérieux, from mystère, secret, from Latin mystērium, from Greek mustērion, secret rite, from mustēs, an initiate, from mūein, to close the eyes, initiate.]

Secret: [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sēcrētus, from past participle of sēcernere, to set aside : sē-, apart + cernere, to separate.]

There is nothing mysterious about being the steward yet exercises no authority, or as I put it, Be in charge and not rule. Rather, it is a more mature, profound and deeper way of being in charge. It is what true stewardship is about as compared to control and domination. The same goes for Act and yetnot depend on and Give birth to, nurture, give birth and yet not have. These are deeper facets of action and giving birth to that come only with maturity. They are subtle, weighty, patient… but not mysterious, as I see it.

When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing? Well, not only can I, but I find such know nothing to be inevitable. The more I ‘know’ the more I know that I know nothing. This is another one of those dead obvious open secrets. Some of the other points made here like, Focused in spirit, can you be as a baby? can be a more difficult shoe to fit into. I can be as a baby only when I cease thinking, but to cease thinking 24/7 would be unnatural. I am human; I think. The barn door has opened and the cognitive cows are out in the field. Even so, just realizing the difficulty that comes with that is enough to maintain satisfactory balance. As a favorite passage says, Realizing I don’t know is better; not knowing this knowing is dis-ease.

Finally, this chapter was particularly helpful in affirming how I sought to raise my children. Nothing surpasses the wisdom and effectiveness of this approach. If I’d had children in my 20’s rather than in my 40’s, I would have been incapable of following this approach. Maturity is the base upon which wisdom stands. Alas, in the modern times, young parents are more often left without much mature family elder guidance, and so it turns out to be ‘children’ rearing children on their own. It doesn’t help that the culture has become youth skewed, as exemplified by the old saw, “don’t trust anyone over 30 didn’t help”. Of course, that will all change in time… naturally.

Suggested Revision:

Loaded down in living, can you be without?Focused in spirit, can you be as a baby?
Washing away the mystery, can you see life as flawless?
Loving the nation, can you govern the people without acting?
When Heaven’s gate opens wide, can your action be female?
When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?
Give birth to, nurture, give birth and yet not have;
Act and yet not depend on;
Be in charge and yet not rule;

First Pass: Chapter of the Week12/31/2008

Loaded down with life, can you leave with nothing reminds me of advice Jesus gave: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”.

The last sentence points to underlying causes in my view. Here, ‘where your heart is’ determines what treasures pulls you. I suppose most would agree with that, and yet I often hear folks blame the ‘treasure’. Clinging to treasure is a symptom of ‘where the heart is’. The treasure isn’t the cause, it’s the effect. So, what causes the heart to be where it’s at? Do we choose that? Every example I can recall suggests an emphatic ‘no way Jose’! Rather, it is weakness, or perhaps the fear of weakness, that drives us to hang on, to give birth and have; to act and depend on; to be in charge and rule, and the rest. In other words, weakness is the means the way employs; in our case the fear of weakness does the trick. The master puppeteer, Mother Nature (mysterious female) sure knows how to pull our strings to get life done.

Given most (if not all) of this natural process is beyond our control, why discuss it? I’ve found that the more I realize it is beyond my control, the easier it becomes to model that which is naturally so. It is an ultimate irony; only by accepting my helplessness can I see life as flawless; only then can I truly be who I am; only then can I avoid contending with ideals of who I should be. Although, by discussing any of this leads to the ideal of how ‘it’ could be. Irony upon irony, I suppose it’s a wash in the end.